About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
and the recent report that it was intelligence officials who changed susan rice's talking points, not the white house. senator john mccain has come out now to issue this statement on the heels of that saying this latest episode another reason why many of rus so frustrated with and suspicious of the actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. yet again it goes back to the administration. why do you think the president's team has been successful in efforts to stop the controversy the despite this very strong defense of rice that's coming out -- that's coming from the president himself? have they done enough? >> have they done enough to defend susan rice? certainly, i think the president's been very clear about how he feels about susan rice. i think -- and he's been right to defend her. i think some of the attacks that have come from senator mccain and others have been very political in their tone and really not thinking about her job and the talking points she received and also the seriousness of the situation and the timing of when this political fight began, which was r
hard answers and talk about appointments. susan rice is an excellent candidate to be secretary of state and i think that john mccain came out just today and said he was opposed to her nomination. i don't think that's a fair statement because susan rice was simply following the advice from general petraeus who john mccain says was a hero so there's a great deal of inconsistency in the republican messaging that needs to be answered. >> mccain's biggest obstacle is the fact she went on the sunday talkers and talked about the video that -- >> and she was following the talking points given to her by general petraeus of cia. how can you say that petraeus is a hero on the one hand but susan rice who is following general petraeus' talking points is not. >> the president has his first press conference coming up in just a couple of hours and as we have been highly aware, the fiscal cliff is certainly going to be a big conversation but can the president get the focus where it needs to be when it comes to the fiscal cliff especially when we have people like paul ryan giving interviews saying he's s
of the deadly attack of a u.s. consulate in libya, including whether ambassador susan rice's so-called talking points were altared the weekend after she gave that announcem of the attack. >> she didn't know anything about the attack in benghazi and the most politically compliant person. i don't know what she knew, but i know that the story she told was misleading. >> the debate on the hill intensified by general david petraeus' testimony friday that they suspected terrorism from the very beginning. >> why do you tell the american public something that is different in meaning? it should be perhaps leave out the details or the sources and then -- >> well, again, though, the details here were al qaeda. >> before you get to the question of what susan rice should or shouldn't have said, i think that we need to know the answer of who changed the talking points and why. >> okay. so let's get to the bottom of this and say good morning to the political power panel. we have susan page, and msnbc analyst karen finney and also a columnist for "the hill" and also the campaign manager for rick sanitorium's
susan rice benghazi statement comes in at and obviously general petraeus as well. or is it that perhaps the -- maybe the facts were kind of nuanced or perhaps maybe they were fudged a little bit? that's the real question. because i think most people realize, especially lawmakers on the intelligence committee know that sometimes the intelligence is simply not accurate the first time around. >> blake, is there an expectation this will bring closure or resolution from the right as robert points out whether or not republicans are going to be satisfied by this testimony? >> i think it really depends on what angle the republicans pursue in this case. if we go back initially when the incident first occurred of course mitt romney's initial reaction was to try to politicize this and say that the president was sympathizing with the other side. of course that didn't go over very well and then the next attempt was to try to say, well, the president was incompetent in terms of security but then it came out that the administration's attempt to get more funding for embassy security was cut by republic
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)